CAIN@SRI-AI.ARPA (05/25/84)
Regarding Jeff Duntemann's reply to my statement about there not being a science/art split and about SF not being mature... We definitely DO NOT agree. And you do not have my endorsement. I still feel strongly that the science/art split is much more complex than you think. Whether someone sees his own discipline as "the frosting on the cake" or as "the whole cake" is clearly a matter of individual perception -- it is not inherent in the discipline. Any you clearly voice your own perceptions. Why pile the blame for despair on mainstream? Why give the gift of hope solely to SF (my god, what literature has more thoroughly wallowed in galactic destruction?)? If you feel all of mainstream literature is the voice of existential despair and has died, then might I suggest you read the wrong stories? Credentials (e.g. majors in English) don't do it. I have my own opinions about existential despair and young scientists, but I'll deliver that one on request only. I still maintain SF has not matured appreciably in 40 years. Re-written westerns and romances on far-flung worlds, yes. Codified the rules of FTL travel, sensors, and photon torpedoes, yes. But SF is still a special-interest genre, and it does reject alot of new blood if the rules aren't followed. I, too, want it to grow. Up. I like SF (surprised?), but only about 10 percent of it. I like mainstream (but only about 10 percent of it). However, if you feel STARTIDE RISING (which I place solidly in the unfortunate 90 percent) is genuinely an example of the maturity (or quality) of SF, then I guess it demonstrates we are not all of us alike. ... ron cain (cain@sri-ai) -------